Response from ESPN about lack of coverage on Milton Bradley trade

by rungood on Dec 23, 2005 7:34 AM PST

I didn't know where to put this, since no one is gonna look back to Blez' original article about ESPN's bias and the lack of coverage on our acquisition of Milton Bradley.

But anyways I got a letter back from ESPN's assistant to the ombudsman and thought I'd share it with you. I'm sure it doesn't mean much since it's only an assistant, but it was good to see that other people complained too. I'm wondering how many others were AN members...

Here is my original letter and the response I received this week from ESPN is below:

Dear Mr. Solomon,
I write because frankly, I was quite dissappointed tonight with ESPN's coverage of the Oakland Athletics' acquisition of Milton Bradley. It was given practically no airtime on ESPNEWS (in favor of a trade rumor from the New York Post...which in my eyes, is a not a reliable news source), and when it finally was covered, the information provided was inaccurate!

What's up with that? For the A's, this is a BIG acquisition. In all of baseball it's a big acquisition! We gave up only 1 minor league prospect for 2 MLB-ready players! How is a trade RUMOR bigger news than actual NEWS??

The error in reporting, combined with the lack of attention anyone other than the biggest-market teams get, is incredibly frustrated and reflects a clear bias in your programming. In my eyes, it takes away from any integrity ESPN has, because it's clear you only focus on the major markets--nothing else. I'll put it in stark terms: YOUR TOP PRIORITY IS NO LONGER SPORTS, IT IS MONEY. This is wrong to make clear to fans, even if it is the truth.

Coupled with ESPN.com's shift to the insider service, which completely precludes me from having access to ANY useful information that I previously could get on your site without having to pay, this latest ESPN guffaw is the last straw. I'm done with you guys, unless you can do something to ameliorate the situation. I know I'm not the only one that's unhappy and I'll make sure to spread my dissatisfaction with ESPN to all those I know, which is actually quite large considering the voice weblogs give people today. Then again, I doubt I'll ever hear back from you or anyone else at ESPN regarding my actual opinions on the matter because you're too busy focusing on the Yankees/Red Sox, Lakers/Heat or USC to care about a mid-market contender that won't go away.

Regretfully,
rungood

-----
rungood,

You're certainly not the only one upset about the Bradley coverage. Hopefully George [Solomon] will get some thoughts in his next column. Appreciate your email. Thanks.

--
Scott Goldstein
Assistant to the Ombudsman
espn.feedback@gmail.com
-----

This is hardly the response I wanted, so I'm not going to go away. I'm gonna keep pestering them. You all should too if you want to see more of the A's on Sportscenter.

Then again, when we win world series this year, they'll have to talk about us. <knocking on wood> But first, I expect them to do some good talking when we get Frank Thomas! <increases frequency of knocking!>

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Doubt that ESPN cares

whether west coast fans pay attention to ESPN or not. I am in midwest and they offer nothing to get my attention...just passing over the game (A's) and its participants, so I do not watch SportsCenter but get news on the internet instead. That is why some items on ESPN fail to be understood when someone says PTL or whatever was on with a program. Not interested in Oral Roberts or whoever's religious program on a sports page. HaHa. Guess it was Behind the scenes or something like that for a program. So I seldom know that ESPN has an A's game on when they do unless it is shown as such on the internet. MLB is another I avoid as the A's site captures you and then will not release other info from their site since they want you to view their six screens. Well I had my say as an old foggie.

Charlie Brown GO A'S WIN

by Charlie Brown on Dec 23, 2005 7:49 AM PST reply actions

ESPN

You should how badly they have screwed the west coast bass fisherman since their purchase of BASS.
It is only about money for them and nothing else. I can barely stand to watch any thing on ESPN anymore.

by Slushpuppy on Dec 23, 2005 9:41 AM PST reply actions

ESPN Blows

My New Years resolution is to blow off ESPN radio. I keep hoping they will give the A's and the West coast some air time but it is always the same thing, Patriots this and Red Sox that.

We need a West coast newwork!!!!

by Puget Sound Athletic on Dec 23, 2005 9:53 AM PST reply actions

Enough info with out it...

I really don't miss ESPN all that much..thought I would, but I find plenty on other sites...and thanks to AN, find out almost ALL the A's news here, first!
And frankly, I don't mind Oakland being out of that media spotlight glare...would like more coverage/respect sure, but that makes it all the sweeter when they do wake up and notice.

"sometimes I can't tell the difference between baseball and magic..." SALB918

by LongTimeFan on Dec 23, 2005 10:13 AM PST reply actions

Re: Milton Bradley Coverage

OK, I know the media. I think we should be somewhat happy we got minimal coverage on the Bradley trade.

Which angle do you think ESPN would've taken to covering it?

- A's acquire misunderstood, solid hitting OF Bradley

or...

- A's trade promising prospect for troublemaking, hot-headed, wife-beater

It could've been worse.

"Free." - Dan Johnson's beer of choice... RIP Richard Pryor

by JLaff on Dec 23, 2005 10:36 AM PST reply actions

Agreed

The last thing we want is media attention and consequently explotiation. We get thoughtful analyses from a variety of sources and true experts. The A's always play with more confidence when no one is looking, especially ESPN. Last September, the streAk, post-season meltdowns. Let's face it, more ESPN viewers are only casual baseball fans. Broadcast television has to appeal to a happy medium. I'm happy we have AN and other Internet sources for the real poop.

Yo La Tengo! hey, I got it! -Richie Ashburn

by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 23, 2005 11:39 AM PST up reply actions

good points.

I guess just what I meant by it is that this is just the latest transgression in a series of A's-ignoring moves.

The angle I would have liked to see is: "A's fleece Colletti, look VERY strong this year." I agree though, it could have been much worse than what happened.

Maybe I'm just naïve, but I really think Bradley will be no problem for the A's. The players aren't dumb; I'm sure they realize that MB has a history of being a hothead, but it's largely because he's been provoked. We don't have a Jeff Kent on our team, and based on Chavvy and Crosby's comments, respectively, it seems they're ready to nurture Bradley's energy and emotion and channel it into something special. But then again, maybe I'm just naïve...

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Dec 23, 2005 11:43 AM PST up reply actions

I agree...

...in fact, I predict that Chavez has MB in his little bible-study clatch by mid-June and that Milton will be offering quotes like "Hosanna, Curt Schilling's cutter seems to have lost some zip, by golly!" by the end of the year.

"Macha, Howe...whatever." --salb918

by BruceBochte on Dec 23, 2005 12:56 PM PST up reply actions

MB not crazy

He strikes me as a hot head like Rasheed Wallace, not a wacko ala Ron Artest. He'll be fine, but if he doesn't work our, we'll be fine too.

Yo La Tengo! hey, I got it! -Richie Ashburn

by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 23, 2005 1:11 PM PST up reply actions

Yo la tengo!

Hahaha!
Ashburn watches Chacon peel off, then
WHAM!!!
Ashburn gets blindsided by Donn Clendenon from left field!

Love those Mets stories!

Marv Throneberry hits one into the gap, and chugs and chugs all the way to third!!!

However, upon appeal, he is call "out" for missing second base!

Stengel runs out, but before he says a word, the ump sez..

"Casey, he missed first base too!"

"Don't go getting all Alexander Haig on me, either." Beane to Forst at GM winter meetings.

by Ducts on the Pawn on Dec 23, 2005 7:36 PM PST up reply actions

I read that he got taken out by

an RF named, Frank Thomas, who didn't know what the hell yo la tengo meant.

Richie proved you just can't win being multi-cultural. My father-in-law, a sportwriter, was very close with him. RIP Richie.

Yo La Tengo! hey, I got it! -Richie Ashburn

by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 23, 2005 11:40 PM PST up reply actions

Red Sox and Yanks make the money for ESPN

I think the letter and response are pretty cool but I really don't think the Disney conglomerate cares about fair sports reporting (unless it would make more money). ESPN is just a cog, while important, in the Disney money making machine. Your best bet may be to buy shares in Disney. That way you could complain as an owner of ESPN.

Look on the bright side, if ESPN weren't so bad, AN probably wouldn't exist.

by mmurray on Dec 23, 2005 1:30 PM PST reply actions

that's actually not a bad angle to play

Funny thing is, I actualy do own shares of Disney! I'll definitely include this complaint in my next letter.

Point #2: very happy to have AN.

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Dec 23, 2005 1:33 PM PST up reply actions

If you're serious about that,

you should probably invest in Comcast rather than Disney... Comcast (you may or may not recall) almost (and by almost, I mean was a millimeter away) from purchasing Disney, and didn't have quiiite the extra smidget of $$ that it needed (I know this because my friend's father works for Comcast)

Certainly not plugging Comcast -- bastahds won't fix my damn On-Demand -- but the extra money would help them buy Disney and thereby ESPN, and as I understand Comcast also has networks in the West, so any complaints from said area would be taken far more seriously than the almost purely eastern Disney/ESPN

by Alon on Dec 23, 2005 9:18 PM PST up reply actions

Is it really WC v EC thing

My impression for baseball is it is a Yankee, Red Sox thing and no one else gets love.

Just not sure I see a ton about the O's, D-rays, Marlins ect either.

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Dec 23, 2005 2:34 PM PST reply actions

What about the Seahawks..

As much as I hate to admit it they are having an awesome season but here in the midwest... nobody hears anything about them!

The Last Lieutenant remaining in the "Armas Army"

by str8tarrow on Dec 24, 2005 9:56 PM PST up reply actions

I see a lot of A's coverage on ESPN

Maybe they didn't cover the Bradley trade very much because it's december and milton bradley aint exactly a-rod. a controversial best-seller and six years of 88+ wins will get you a fair amount of coverage, which the a's certainly get from the entertainment sports network.

by Nick86 on Dec 24, 2005 1:05 AM PST reply actions

Re: I see a lot of A's coverage on ESPN

I agree with Nick86. People are putting an awful lot of effort into trying to be insulted by this.

by wedge on Dec 24, 2005 3:40 PM PST up reply actions

Of course,

most of the A's coverage is the inordinate amount of footage of A's striking out or getting homered off of in clips for the opposing team...

Damn! Street is so imposing, he even causes the earth itself to freeze in fear! - monkeyball

by Jjjsixsix on Dec 24, 2005 9:59 PM PST up reply actions

It's not

A'SPN. It's ESPN. We can't expect them to cover every marginally important story that relates to the A's/Oakland/The Bay Area with significant detail. They have to cater to a national audience, and quite frankly, I'm not quite sure they're wrong in assuming the general national audience doesn't give two hoots about Milton Bradley to the A's. It's an unfortunate reality, but it's a reality. And it's a reason places like AN exist. If you want non stop A's coverage, you can look to many other mediums not called ESPN.

by walk off bunt on Dec 24, 2005 9:14 PM PST reply actions